Innocence Project client Eddie Joe Lloyd served 17 years in Michigan prison for a murder and rape he didn't commit before DNA testing proved his innocence and led to his release in 2002.Lloyd was convicted of a brutal 1984 murder of a sixteen-year-old girl in Detroit, Michigan. While in a hospital receiving treatment for his mental illness, Lloyd wrote to police with suggestions on how to solve various murders, including the murder for which he was convicted. Police officers visited and interrogated him several times in the hospital. During the course of these interrogations, police officers allowed Lloyd to believe that, by confessing and getting arrested, he would help them "smoke out" the real perpetrator. They fed him details that he could not have known, including the location of the body, the type of jeans the victim was wearing, a description of earrings the victim wore, and other details from the crime scene. Lloyd signed a written confession and gave a tape recorded statement as well.

So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related. But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG. Who is driving the bus here? The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one. So, that's one less life sentence for you. Have fun serving the others." (or something like that.) In any case, it's not like she's going free. And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life. That would be rather frightening.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

Speaking from my experience working in a DA's office in NYC, cops already have no credibility with the DA. It doesn't really matter though, because the DA just has to go with what they got, which is usually the word of the cops.

The case was first prosecuted by former District Attorney Cal Dunlap, who told us he always believed there were at least two persons involved, and this new news does not mean Cathy Woods had nothing to do with Michelle Mitchell's murder.

You always here a former prosecutor or judge claim this when DNA reveals they convicted an innocent person. So I'm sure, Dunlap, that all your press statements, court transcripts, and notes from the time will back up your claim that you think there was a murdering psycho accomplice still on the loose, right?

RIGHT?

durbnpoisn:So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related. But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG. Who is driving the bus here? The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one. So, that's one less life sentence for you. Have fun serving the others." (or something like that.) In any case, it's not like she's going free. And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life. That would be rather frightening.

Try reading the article.

They found she hadn't committed ANY murders and that the DNA evidence from the murder that SHE was convicted of was also found at OTHER murders.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

So basically you want to hear about me getting my ass tasered and arrested.

durbnpoisn:So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related. But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG. Who is driving the bus here? The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one. So, that's one less life sentence for you. Have fun serving the others." (or something like that.) In any case, it's not like she's going free. And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life. That would be rather frightening.

No, it seems to meanThe DNA found on the cigarette butt matched DNA found at *three other* unsolved murders.

FarkaDark:Matched evidence found at three other murders, but not the defendant/person convicted of the murder in question. Does dot mean she did not do it, just that her DNA was not on the cigarette

Yes, but when the DNA was found a *three other murders*, it sort of, you know. Suggests that perhaps the owner of *that* DNA might be a more likely culprit.

I have been on this planet for half of a century. I grew up bright eyed and open minded. Without a doubt in my mind, cops from Podunk towns to large cities are overwhelmingly corrupt. Yes, there are some good ones, but if they where so good why don't they rat out the bad ones? I feel that most grew up with some sort of inferiority complex that compelled them to that kind of work to compensate their issues. DAs are just cops with a law degree from some chicken-shiat law school that couldn't find a job at a legitimate firm.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

So basically you want to hear about me getting my ass tasered and arrested.

No, You don't "tell" cops anything. You just avoid them.

The force is strong with your user name in THIS thread.

Sorry that happened to you. I've dealt with cop BS, and it would take me all day to relate all the stories about all the people I know in at least 10 different states who have been beaten, lied on, arrested - or just put in jail overnight without being charged and lost money, had their car impounded for no reason, and were unable to contact anyone, much less their job. Aspects of peoples lives get ruined that people who refuse to educate themselves can't possibly imagine.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

There is no such thing as a "good cop." I won't believe they exist until they start arresting the bad one at the time the bad ones are doing things like repeatedly tasering someone, filling unarmed people full of lead, etc. Blatant willful dishonesty like yours only makes people even more disgusted. This is why I don't care when something bad happens to a cop.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

Sounds like a good way to end up a vegetable and in jail for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

Sounds like a good way to end up a vegetable and in jail for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest.

durbnpoisn:So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related. But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG. Who is driving the bus here? The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one. So, that's one less life sentence for you. Have fun serving the others." (or something like that.) In any case, it's not like she's going free. And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life. That would be rather frightening.

gshepnyc:CruiserTwelve: Because People in power are Stupid: From cops.

Next time a "cop" tells you that, ask him/her if they care about their credibility with the District Attorney or the courts. Ask them if they care that the DA is sick of seeing their crappy cases come across their desks, or that the judges are sick of seeing their crappy arrests come up for arraignment. Ask them if they care that their supervisors think they're lazy and worthless and incompetent. Ask them if they give a damn that their weak cases create bad case law that makes it harder for the good cops to do their jobs.

There is no such thing as a "good cop." I won't believe they exist until they start arresting the bad one at the time the bad ones are doing things like repeatedly tasering someone, filling unarmed people full of lead, etc. Blatant willful dishonesty like yours only makes people even more disgusted. This is why I don't care when something bad happens to a cop.

I do believe that there are cops who are good and who extend an effort to be good cops. There is just no way of telling which are which and it is best to avoid them altogether which isn't hard (even with my penchant for hookers and blow (I keed)).

The problem is that the authorities that the cops are beholden to -Judges, district attorney's, other cops etc -aren't actually that critical of cops when doing their jobs... because doing so means that they would actually have to make an effort.

To be clear I was never tasered. I was falsely arrested after defending myself in a fight. The cops in question only cited evidence that proved their case against me. They didn't include eyewitnesses in their reports that would've shown the other guy to be the aggressor. I knew someone who knew some people that were there and voila -charges dropped with prejudice.

The arresting officer would see me around and he made a point of making his presence known to me. I believe that he simply didn't like my manner of dress (punk) or some other thing. Or, more likely -he just didn't like being wrong and instead of accepting that fact -he blamed me for it.

But there were other things, growing up "punk" in Phoenix in the 1980's that gave me a very negative view of the police in general influenced mainly by the police themselves.

Starshines:Speaking from my experience working in a DA's office in NYC, cops already have no credibility with the DA. It doesn't really matter though, because the DA just has to go with what they got, which is usually the word of the cops.

So the cops have no credibility, but the DA's still prosecute their cases? Do you see a problem here?

ReapTheChaos:It's true to a point, at least in some cases. Cops will get so focused on someone they believe is guilty that they get tunnel vision and ignore other leads and evidence.

I agree with that. I've seen it happen. That's the point where another cop or a supervisor has to take that detective aside for a chat, or reassign the case to another detective.

In my agency every case has to be approved by a supervisor before filing, and then it has to go through an intake DA for second approval. After that, the case goes to a judge for final approval and issuance of a warrant. Crappy cases don't get very far.

Felgraf:durbnpoisn: So, if I understand this correctly, the one in jail may not be responsible for THIS murder, but is almost certainly responsible for others that were closely related. But they are going to give her a new trial for THIS one.

OMG. Who is driving the bus here? The only possible outcome is for them to say, "ok, it turns out you are aquitted of this one. So, that's one less life sentence for you. Have fun serving the others." (or something like that.) In any case, it's not like she's going free. And it certainly isn't going to bring the girl from 1976 back to life. That would be rather frightening.

No, it seems to meanThe DNA found on the cigarette butt matched DNA found at *three other* unsolved murders.

FarkaDark: Matched evidence found at three other murders, but not the defendant/person convicted of the murder in question. Does dot mean she did not do it, just that her DNA was not on the cigarette

Yes, but when the DNA was found a *three other murders*, it sort of, you know. Suggests that perhaps the owner of *that* DNA might be a more likely culprit.

lindalouwho:There is plenty of evidence easily accessable to back up "this belief". I see others have posted to that effect.

Do you know how many "filters" a case has to pass through before someone is convicted of a crime? Yeah, sometimes people get convicted of crimes they didn't commit, but in most of those cases there's evidence of guilt. Rarely is someone convicted without any reason at all, and rarely is it the fault of the detective that filed the charges in the first place.

In this case they had a confession made to a mental health worker in another part of the country three years after the crime. The defendant knew where the crime took place and the name of the victim. That's pretty convincing evidence and I wouldn't be a bit surprised that she participated in the murder. Just because her DNA wasn't found on a cigarette butt at the scene doesn't mean she wasn't there.

gshepnyc:There is no such thing as a "good cop." I won't believe they exist until they start arresting the bad one at the time the bad ones are doing things like repeatedly tasering someone, filling unarmed people full of lead, etc. Blatant willful dishonesty like yours only makes people even more disgusted. This is why I don't care when something bad happens to a cop.

Speaking of willful dishonesty, you've apparently decided to ignore the numerous Fark threads where cops get arrested for doing bad shiat. Those bad cops were arrested by good cops who far outnumber them.

I understand that I will never win over a person that states "There is no such thing as a "good cop." There is nothing I can say, no evidence I can present, that will change your belief.

Because People in power are Stupid:I can see that you are very gung ho and want us to believe in the system. The reality for the rest of us is quite different.So you are wrong. Please don't take it out on someone.

I'm not "very gung ho." I'm simply pointing out that false convictions, while they do happen, are rare. You choose to read stuff into my posts that aren't there but that help to support the beliefs you already hold.

Did you know the "Innocence Project" that uses DNA to overcome false convictions refuses to release the number of cases they have investigated where DNA has supported the conviction? Why do you think that is?

CruiserTwelve:Because People in power are Stupid: I can see that you are very gung ho and want us to believe in the system. The reality for the rest of us is quite different.So you are wrong. Please don't take it out on someone.

I'm not "very gung ho." I'm simply pointing out that false convictions, while they do happen, are rare. You choose to read stuff into my posts that aren't there but that help to support the beliefs you already hold.

Did you know the "Innocence Project" that uses DNA to overcome false convictions refuses to release the number of cases they have investigated where DNA has supported the conviction? Why do you think that is?

Because it's irrelevant. If there are 10 cases and in 9 of them the convicted defendants are guilty, it doesn't change the fact that one of them was wrongly convicted.

SundaesChild:Because it's irrelevant. If there are 10 cases and in 9 of them the convicted defendants are guilty, it doesn't change the fact that one of them was wrongly convicted.

So why withhold that information? Yes, they are doing a good thing by getting innocent people out of jail, but they're doing a huge injustice by not letting people know just how few people are being wrongly convicted. But Barry Scheck makes millions of dollars by fostering a mistrust of the judicial system, and allowing some people to believe the system is far worse than it really is.